Sanders Speaks on Foreign Policy

Bernie Sanders delivered a fairly wide-ranging foreign policy speech at Westminster College in Fulton, MO earlier today. He outlined in broad strokes his views for what U.S. foreign policy includes and what it should do. Among other things, he also spoke directly against U.S. support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen:

Unfortunately, today we still have examples of the United States supporting policies that I believe will come back to haunt us. One is the ongoing Saudi war in Yemen.

While we rightly condemn Russian and Iranian support for Bashar al-Assad’s slaughter in Syria, the United States continues to support Saudi Arabia’s destructive intervention in Yemen, which has killed many thousands of civilians and created a humanitarian crisis in one of the region’s poorest countries. Such policies dramatically undermine America’s ability to advance a human rights agenda around the world, and empowers authoritarian leaders who insist that our support for those rights and values is not serious.

While I wish Sen. Sanders would have said a bit more about this in the speech, I applaud him for speaking out against our indefensible policy in Yemen. He is in a position right now where he can call attention to policies like this one and get large numbers of Americans to take notice. If there is more sustained criticism and scrutiny of U.S. support for the Saudis’ atrocious war, the administration may come under some real pressure to scale back or end U.S. involvement or to press the Saudis and their allies for a cease-fire. It would have been easy in a speech like this to neglect mentioning specific policies, and Sanders should be commended for making a point of including Yemen.

Sanders also gave an interview to The Intercept this week, and based on the excerpts published so far he is going beyond criticizing the Saudi-led war on Yemen to questioning the relationship with Saudi Arabia itself:

Sanders issued a scathing denunciation of the Gulf kingdom, which has recently embarked on a new round of domestic repression.

“I consider [Saudi Arabia] to be an undemocratic country that has supported terrorism around the world, it has funded terrorism. … They are not an ally of the United States.”

The Vermont senator accused the “incredibly anti-democratic” Saudis of “continuing to fund madrasas” and spreading “an extremely radical Wahhabi doctrine in many countries around the world.”

It will take a long time to break American politicians and analysts of the habit of referring to the Saudis as an ally, but Sanders is taking a necessary first step in explicitly denying that claim. Once we start to recognize that the Saudis are not an ally in any sense, the relationship may be changed accordingly.

Sanders went on to say other important things in his speech. Here he made a valuable observation:

We must rethink the old Washington mindset that judges “seriousness” according to the willingness to use force. One of the key misapprehensions of this mindset is the idea that military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not.

Yes, military force is sometimes necessary, but always — always — as the last resort. And blustery threats of force, while they might make a few columnists happy, can often signal weakness as much as strength, diminishing US deterrence, credibility and security in the process.

Here Sanders directly challenges the bias in our foreign policy debates in favor of “doing something” in which “something” is almost always some military option. We frequently hear a policy derided as “bystanderism” or “standing idly by” if it doesn’t involve bombing or arming someone, and rejecting that mindset is at least as important as any specific policy recommendations Sanders might make. Sanders illustrates his point with a very constructive and timely contrast between the Iraq war and the nuclear deal with Iran:

Today it is now broadly acknowledged that the war in Iraq, which I opposed, was a foreign policy blunder of enormous magnitude.

In addition to the many thousands killed, it created a cascade of instability around the region that we are still dealing with today in Syria and elsewhere, and will be for many years to come. Indeed, had it not been for the Iraq War, ISIS would almost certainly not exist.

The Iraq war, as I said before, had unintended consequences. It was intended as a demonstration of the extent of American power. It ended up demonstrating only its limits.

In contrast, the Iran nuclear deal advanced the security of the US and its partners, and it did this at a cost of no blood and zero treasure.

The contrast couldn’t be clearer between the two. The first was an illegal preventive war launched in the name of eliminating a non-existent threat at enormous cost to the U.S. and the region. The other was a negotiated agreement that resolved an outstanding issue peacefully and thus headed off the danger of a new war and eliminated the possibility of further nuclear proliferation. The Iraq war cost America thousands of lives, tens of thousands of wounded, and trillions of dollars, while the nuclear deal cost the U.S. nothing at all. They are two of the more significant policy debates on foreign policy of this century, and the people that both opposed the war and supported the deal (including Sanders) have shown demonstrably better judgment than their opponents.

Sanders followed up this contrast with a strong defense of the need to keep the deal as it is:

I call on my colleagues in the Congress, and all Americans: We must protect this deal. President Trump has signaled his intention to walk away from it, as he did the Paris agreement, regardless of the evidence that it is working. That would be a mistake.

Not only would this potentially free Iran from the limits placed on its nuclear program, it would irreparably harm America’s ability to negotiate future nonproliferation agreements. Why would any country in the world sign such an agreement with the United States if they knew that a reckless president and an irresponsible Congress might simply discard that agreement a few years later?

If we are genuinely concerned with Iran’s behavior in the region, as I am, the worst possible thing we could do is break the nuclear deal. It would make all of these other problems harder.

His Senate colleagues should heed what Sanders is saying and follow his example in standing up for a successful non-proliferation agreement that is squarely in the national interest.

During the 2016 campaign, I thought Sanders could and should have said more about foreign policy. I still think the Democratic Party and the country would have benefited if he had done that, but fortunately he is doing it now. He should be commended for giving a thoughtful, important speech that should open up new debates on foreign policy on the left and perhaps across the political spectrum.

Hide 13 comments

13 Responses to Sanders Speaks on Foreign Policy

During the 2016 campaign, I thought Sanders could and should have said more about foreign policy.

TBH this is really one of the two big things Bernie failed to do in 2016 Primary. (along with not reaching out early enough to African-Americans in the South which is also improved on since 2016.) This was easiest pickings against HRC and I remembered he was at sea against HRC while bringing 1980s Central America battles that most voters don’t remember. (I thought he was to lecture us on the United Fruit at any minute!)

Probably the most important improvement here is Matt Duss writing and influence as being the ‘Peace’ candidate helps win the Presidency and the Democratic Primary. (Given the press made Trump the peace candidate that means only Bush 2004 was the winner the hawk since 1992. Yes I know it is hard to admit Bush was the peace candidate in 2000.)

Ah, what could have been, but for Clinton. I was a Bernie-Trump voter in 2016 (and it would have been Bernie-Bernie if he’d made it to the general). He represents so much of what the Democratic Party has lost.

@Jon S
I think it’s the socialist part of Bernie that makes him the adult in the room. While he respects the energetic power of capitalism immensely, it’s not a religion to him. And this makes him pragmatic and clear thinking.

I hope he continues to speak out on foreign policy. The Democratic Party establishment displays zero interest in challenging Trump’s military escalations; they outright applauded him when he launched missiles at Syria. The antiwar left largely vanished once GW Bush left office. Maybe it will revive itself now.

Big fan of Bernie. My only caveat would be he cannot, as an American politician, admit that the BIGGEST supporter of terrorism and terror in the world today is these very United States. But of course, he cannot say that. Look at what happened to King when he started bringing up that “stuff”.

I too was very saddened that Sanders (IMHO) actively refused to make foreign policy/warmongering an issue in the primary. I understand that he wanted to maintain focus on his primary (economic, broadly conceived) issues, but he seemed to be willing to engage on other tangents (some culture war stuff, e.g. immigration and a bit on guns) whereas it was like he would not acknowledge the foreign policy/natsec stuff (where he certainly had a clear contrast to HRC).

But I still thing among the currently nationally visible Dems, the Profiles in Courage award should go first and foremost to Murphy for visibly breaking over Yemen while Obama was still in office (hell, before the election).

It was miles better than the foreign policy views of most politically important democrats, but severally things rubbed me the wrong way:

1. The belief that Russia constitutes a grave threat to American democracy and related beliefs about the danger of Russia on the international stage. I have my doubts about the Russia hacking scandal, but even if parts of it were true, it would not justify the claim that America’s democracy is at threat. So far as I can tell, nobody has even tried to prove any causal connection between Russian “influence” (whether through wikileaks or facebook ads) and how people voted. My guess is that those who already disliked Hillary were strengthened in their resolve not to vote for her by them, but I doubt few if any people explicitly changed their vote as a result. Like the supposed Russian Hacking, where’s the evidence? Moreover, Russia has shown little threat internationally. It has not tried to annex any other parts of the Ukraine (recently I read it was in favor of having UN peacekeepers in Ukraine) and it does not show any real interest in threatening any other Eastern European countries. Any supposed military build-up on the borders seems defensive (related to corresponding NATO build-up). Moreover, Putin has argued for dialogue regarding the NK situation, which puts him in the sane and reasonable camp, at least on that issue.

2. While Bernie came out in support of the Iran deal, he still felt compelled to mention that it was a threat to other Middle Eastern countries. While it certainly is expanding its “soft-power” influence in Iraq and Syria, these do not seem to correspond to military build-up. It seems that Iran is just taking an opportunity of the power vacuums left by the US and its allies, including their support for ISIS and other rebel groups. Hardly a threat.

3. Bernie endorsed more sanctions on NK and putting more pressure on China, which will be totally un-helpful to easing tensions and opening dialogue. Sanctions have proven totally ineffective in curbing NK militarization. Moreover, they seem to have had the opposite effect. They spur NK on to develop weapons more rapidly and make greater threats. Experts, like David Kang and John Delury have also called attention to the fact that the various small market reforms that have been taking place in NK, which overwhelming benefit the NK people, may be curbed in light of continued sanctions. It is very telling that Bernie does not endorse dialogue as the primary solution to the NK problem.

4. Bernie did not mention drone warfare and its consequences in the Mid-east. During his campaign he endorsed the use of drones. This has always bothered me.

I applaud Bernie’s stand on Saudi Arabia. That alone sets him apart from most other democrats and republicans. I also was glad that he called out US complicity in Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. However, I worry that he still retains too much of the liberal-interventionist attitude than many of his supporters would like to think.

After switching allegiance from Jeb after he fell, I supported and voted for Donald Trump. However, Senator Sanders tugged at me the whole time in a visceral manner because he cut to the chase with a level of integrity that is unmatched by other politicians on either left or right of the political issues. Unfortunately, he was bludgeoned by Hillary and her minions in the DNC. Meanwhile, it cannot be denied he speaks common sense . . . and I both recognize the language and feel myself responding.

Today, he advocates Medicare For All and I must admit to finding myself warming to the idea to a far greater degree than I do the Graham-Cassidy proposal. Me? I’ve long self-identified as a Republican . . . but today I openly admit I’m coming to hold the opinion the Republican party no longer really represent me. Perhaps it’s because I have finally wised up.

Anyway, I’m tired of being used for the benefit of drug makers, hospitals, and health insurance providers. Especially because every year I’m being charged more and more – to the point that instead of buying my wife a new car every three years she gets a used one that we keep until it’s uneconomic to repair before searching for a replacement – because health care expenditures are eating into our standard of living in this visible manner. And note, I’m a business owner, e.g. not exactly destitute so believe me, something’s going really, really wrong with the track we’re on.

Agree with them or not – its important and good for the country to have more people hear about Sanders’ positions. Its helpful when he takes them.

side note: I’ve said many times on this corner of the internet, Amy Klobuchar will be the first woman President. Prosecutor Mom. Thoroughly milquetoast politically, then steps up to share the stage with Sanders on universal health care next week. She won’t forget Wisconsin or Iowa.

16-1 at Ladbrokes for Democratic candidate and dropping. Down from 33 and 100 before that. For entertainment purposes only. Void where prohibited.

“G” hit the spot. Sanders not President makes some tepid remarks veering away from Beltway orthodoxy on SA, while hewing to the war mongering other 95 per cent. As President? He’d be rolled by the Deep State before Inauguration Day. Maybe his private opinion about the wars he’d inherit and prosecute would be like that of “Great Society” Lyndon about the futility and waste of Vietnam, but they’d still go on forever, if he didn’t want to be defenestrated.

I’ve got to observe the greatest danger of a disastrous escalation, comes if the Russia Conspiracy hysteria is allowed to succeed. The survival of the Trump Presidency, and perhaps actual survival, could easily be determined by launching an irrevocable major war, because that is the lesson of not just American history, but history in general, about threatened leadership.

Nothing helps embattled leaders and regimes dig in, more than digging in for war against them, at home or abroad.